Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386595
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: LIGO |
| Date | 2016-06-25 00:09 +0200 |
| Organization | PointedEars Software (PES) |
| Message-ID | <576DAFA3.2020603@PointedEars.de> (permalink) |
| References | <njsg91$pkk$1@pcls7.std.com> <nju8vd$ujj$1@pcls7.std.com> <nk2vrq$opd$1@dont-email.me> <1748388.oMNUckLgyt@PointedEars.de> <nkdamu$55e$1@dont-email.me> |
Steven Carlip wrote: > On 6/18/16 2:06 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Steven Carlip wrote: >>> […] More details are in arxiv.org/abs/1606.04856. >> >> First of all, when you refer to resources, you should post URIs; not >> only is that unambiguous, it is also more convenient for many readers >> since their software would create hyperlinks. Additionally, in this >> case you should not refer to the version on the preprint server, >> arXiv.org, but to the official version since (AFAIK) all the LSC and >> VC’s papers can be read online for free. > > In this field, the standard practice is to refer to the arXiv version. > You can get to the "official version" easily enough from the arXiv site, > but the arXiv has added advantages: it will often have the most recent > version (for this paper, v2 is up now), and it has links to, for > instance, the Inspire and NASA ADS listings of citations. If you look at > the "official version" you cite, you'll notice that the references almost > all have hyperlinks to the arXiv. You are, of course, welcome to use any > method you like to cite papers; I'll go with the practice of the people > (like me) who actually work in the field. Thank you for the update; that makes sense. But it would still be better if you posted URIs. >> “[…] It also identified a third possible signal, LVT151012, with >> substantially lower significance, which has a 87% probability of being >> of astrophysical origin. […]” > >> That is a _13_ % chance of being noise, is it not? > > There are a number of different ways of getting the estimate. The > abstract used the most conservative, which is perhaps fair enough. But if > you look at section IIIC, you'll see that the two matched template > analyses gave sigmas of 1.7 and 2.0. ACK, thanks. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
LIGO moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-15 21:10 +0000
Re: LIGO moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-16 13:18 +0000
Re: LIGO Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-06-18 10:13 +0200
Re: LIGO Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-18 11:06 +0200
Re: LIGO Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-06-21 23:20 -0700
Re: LIGO Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-25 00:09 +0200
Re: LIGO moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 15:36 +0000
Re: LIGO "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 10:04 -0700
Re: LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 14:41 -0500
Re: LIGO "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 22:07 -0700
Re: LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:30 -0500
csiph-web